VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-71569: Apache Camel · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Apache CamelSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium : upgrade to 4.22.2 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 11:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (apache)	CVSS 3.1	4.8

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.22.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Apache Camel and org.apache.camel/camel-a2a to 4.22.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Camelorg.apache.camel:camel-a2a	Affected >=4.21.0 <4.22.2	Fixed in 4.22.2
Mavenorg.apache.camel/camel-a2a`pkg:maven/org.apache.camel/camel-a2a`Other threats	Affected >=4.21.0 <4.22.2	Fixed in 4.22.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Users should upgrade Apache Camel to version 4.22.2 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by a unified address classification approach. For those unable to upgrade immediately, it is recommended to place authentication in front of the A2A push notification configuration endpoint to prevent untrusted callers from registering webhook URLs. Additionally, network-level egress filtering should deny outbound traffic from the Camel process to the fc00::/7 IPv6 range. Deployments not requiring IPv6 can start the JVM with the -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true option to avoid the affected address class. Note that the default configuration with allowLocalWebhookUrls=false does not by itself prevent this issue.

Description

CVE-2026-71569 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Apache Camel A2A component affecting versions from 4.21.0 up to but not including 4.22.2. The issue arises from inconsistent classification of webhook hosts when specified as IP literals versus hostnames, allowing an attacker to bypass local address restrictions and cause the server to send unauthorized HTTPS requests to internal IPv6 unique local addresses (fc00::/7). The vulnerability has a medium severity score and does not relay responses back to the attacker, limiting impact. The flaw is fixed in Apache Camel version 4.22.2 and later.

Impact

An attacker able to register a push notification webhook URL can cause the Apache Camel process to send HTTPS requests to internal IPv6 unique local addresses (fc00::/7) that are normally blocked by the webhook URL guard. This can lead to unauthorized internal network requests including the transmission of authorization headers, potentially exposing internal services. However, the response is not relayed back to the attacker, and successful exploitation requires specific network and TLS conditions, limiting the overall impact to a medium severity level.

Summary

The vulnerability in Apache Camel's A2A component involves the WebhookUrlValidator inconsistently classifying hosts depending on whether they are specified as IP literals or resolved hostnames. Specifically, the IPv6 unique local address range fc00::/7 is not properly recognized by the Java InetAddress predicates, causing the guard to incorrectly allow webhook URLs resolving to these addresses when given as hostnames but reject them when given as literals. This discrepancy enables an attacker controlling the webhook URL to cause the Camel process to send blind outbound HTTPS requests to internal IPv6 unique local addresses, potentially including authorization headers. The issue affects Apache Camel versions >=4.21.0 and <4.22.2. The vulnerability is mitigated by upgrading to version 4.22.2 or later, where a unified address classifier correctly recognizes fc00::/7 and related address spaces. Additional mitigations include network-level egress restrictions and JVM configuration to prefer IPv4 stacks.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 10:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats